Texts on the recent repression against autonomous media projects in France

Translator's intro:
Over the past couple of months, there have been several acts of repression aimed at autonomous media project in the territory controlled by the French state. Below are two translated texts dealing with this.

The first discusses criminal charges brought against an anarchist comrade for texts published on the long-running anarchist website cettesemaine.info. This site recently decided to stop publishing, while making clear that it is not because of the repression they face, but rather with the limits of counter-info projects and dissatisfaction with how much importance the internet is given in the anarchist space. The comrade's trial is this Wednesday, November 8, in Paris.

The second is from Indymedia Nantes about their decision to ignore a legal demand from the French cybercrime division ordering them to remove communiques about attacks and announcing contingency plans in case their site is blocked in the coming days.

This repression follows on the German government's recent decision to shut down Indymedia Linksunten and in a context in France where the current government has bypassed the usual democratic steps to write parts of the State of Emergency (that has been in effect for a year and a half) permanently into criminal law. Some see this as a broadening of the repressive measures developed for use against Islamist groups to include anarchists and social movements.

As an anarchist involved in counter-info projects, as an anarchist period, I feel solidarity with the comrades at Indymedia Nantes and especially with the person being dragged before a judge this week in Paris. Fuck all courts and the world that needs them. One way of showing this solidarity is to share information about the situation and to make plans for how we can continue communicating in a context of increasing repression, while never forgetting that solidarity means attack.

A comrade will be going to trial Wednesday, November 8th in the Paris Superior Court (TGI Paris). Let's get together on Tuesday October 31 at 7pm at the CICP to discuss how to continue spreading words of solidarity with acts of resistance that speak to us. [1]

On May 18 2016, a police vehicle was burned in the street while it was in use, sending back against the state a bit of the violence that we all experience every day. On February 16, 2017, nine days after a comrade was arrested in Montreuil in this case, a text calling for a dinner and discussion was printed, spread around, and published on Indymedia Nantes. The text went around widely, notably on the site cettesemaine.info (published on February 17) [2]. On April 26, 2017 a comrade had their home searched and was charged with having posted the text on cettesemaine [3]. His trial will take place on Wednesday November 8 in the Paris Superior Court, at 1:30 in room 17.

Two passages in this callout, connected to an attack that cheered up many people, are concerned by the charges. They are the following sentences: “We don't ask for justice just like we don't speak of guilt or innocence, because we hate the justice system as much as we do the police and the order they protect. Instead, let's spread disorder and flames everywhere these scumbags poison our lives!”; and “For the first, second, and third car burned, we all love grilled pig!”

Though the justice system chose to pursue charges under Journalistic law and against a particular internet site, it's solidarity that is under attack. A solidarity that defends action, without political or union mediation and far from the supposed legitimacy of the media. This solidarity lets actions and ideas resonate together. This repression is a way of putting pressure much more broadly and trying to freak people out. Just like when several websites receive emails threatening to block them within 24 hours if they don't take down the communique for the arson at the Grenoble gendarme station, which was also in solidarity with those accused for the Quai de Valmy [4].

While the justice system has condemned seven people to years of prison, solidarity continues. Let's get together on Tuesday October 31 at the CICP to talk about how to continue spreading words in solidarity with acts of revolt that speak to us, without compromising on the need to be open about our ideas and without hiding behind the defense of freedom of speech.

Solidarity is attack!

Endnotes

1] Didn't translate this in time for the callout for discussion to be useful..Also, the original posting got the day of the week wrong for the trial, but it was later corrected on some sites.

Against state terrorism and democratic totalitarianism, it's no longer a question of either ideas or actions in isolation. Rather, it's how the two can once again resonate together, in a subversive thrust towards a freedom beyond measure. A freedom that requires the destruction of all obstacles that the world of domination and exploitation places in front of it. … Regardless of who did or wrote what. What we know though, is that there is no truce in the social war and that the best defense is attack.

4] The burned police car in Paris mentioned a few paragraphs up was on Quai de Valmy
“Request by the hundreds, actions by the thousands.” A new attack on Indymedia NantesThis text was published on Indymedia Nantes on November 1: https://nantes.indymedia.org/articles/39007

At the end of September, we and our friends at Grenoble Indymedia had to take down a text following a request from the OCLCTIC (the French Central Office of the Fight against Crime Involving Information or Communication Technology) [1]. Our first reaction was to tell ourselves that this was an attempt by the state to set an example that would scare counter-info sites and mean that these kinds of claims were no longer published.

As we explained in an interview with our Italian comrades from the project Autistici/ventati [2], the removal decision wasn't easy. There were several reasons for this choice:

“First, by default, because we had trouble co-ordinating, since we weren't all reachable within 24 hours at that time. Second, because it's already been the case that these kinds of blockages also render all the subdomains inaccessible, no just the targetted site, meaning it could have blocked all Indymedia sites in France. Further, because we wanted to remain accessible to the largest number of people, on the non-Tor web, so that all the other content we host was still easily accessible. Finally, because we weren't confident that there would be a movement of support sufficient to counter the threats from the police, seeing how little support there was in France when Indymedia Linksunten was censored [3].”

We were sharply criticized for this decision, and on the one hand, this is perfectly understandable. But we also feel that Indymedia Grenoble's analysis of the situation describes our position too [4]. We are first and foremost a collective that operates by consensus and not a private blog, which makes a real difference when it comes to the speed at which we can make decision. In this situation, the small group of people available at the time had to make the choice to not risk having the site dissapear, without knowing the opinion of other members of the collective.

We also know that this was only a first battle and that this kind of situation could easily recur.

Well, it's happened, since on October 26 we received another removal order for the communique claiming the arson of several municipal police vehicles in Clermont-Ferrand [5]. And we weren't surprised when we received a third order in the night of October 31, this time demanding the removal of the communique claiming the arson against vehicles in the Meylan gendarme station [6]. All this at a time when, next week, a comrade will be in court over a callout posted on the site cettesemaine.info. As at each moment of repression against free media, we show our full support for this person!

It's clear that the OCLCTIC seems to believe that from now on a simple email will make us take down any content that upsets their superiors. But if we choose to participate in an independent media project like Indymedia, it's of course to make an open publishing platform available for all people and collectives in struggle. We are not the producers of this content. And that's why we have decided to not take the articles down this time. It is thus possible that we will be blocked in France in the coming days... or not.

In case IMC Nantes dissapears from the web, don't panic! Don't call the gendarmerie, or at least do it at night, having taken the time to secure your means of communication: it seems that from here on, everything can be used to justify the State of Emergency entering into common law. But we don't intend to serve as strawmen for their attempt.

In any case, it will still be possible to visit the site using Tor Browser. This can get around the blockages the state might impose. If you don't use it already, install it: it's quick and easy.

We will also be setting up new a domain name so that we stay accessible without Tor and will publish that address on the other sites in the Indymedia and Mutu networks.

And of course, we are counting on all of you to make as much noise as possible about this situation to splatter flamby all over the walls [7]

Endnotes

1] The text in question was claiming an arson that substantially destroyed a police station in Grenoble. The OCLCTIC sent messages to several sites demanding that they remove the text within 24 hours. These requests were already judicial orders, meaning that the state could in theory immediately block access to the sites if the demand wasn't met. An Indy Nantes article about this is here: https://nantes.indymedia.org/articles/38602

2] This is the Italy-based collective responsible for, among other things, noblogs. The link to the interview is: https://cavallette.noblogs.org/2017/10/9214 and there is an English translation below the Italian. Here's a short quotation from the introduction: “What the OCLCTIC actually did was a real censorship effort, that (sadly) partially succeeded. Being under pressure, the admins of the websites were forced to delete the relevant URL. But, as it often happens in such cases, the removal of online content generates a proportional counter-reaction: the event elicited an uproar and the same post was immediately reposted by many other French counter-information websites that, by doing so, magnified its backlash. Yet, there is little reason to rejoice. What happened seems to be the first step for a gradual extension of the emergency laws that, after having struck unhindered for more than two years websites associated by local authorities to radical Islamist movements, now aims at wiping out any dissenting voice.”

A short quotation: We're presently working hard to find a better way to react when faced with future threats of this kind and to lay the ground work for other media projects who might come under this kind of pressure in coming days, even those projects that have been very critical of us. It's not a small matter and we'll certaintly keep you posted about it in the weeks and months to come.

In the night of Monday the 23rd and Tuesday the 24th [of October], we entered a parking garage near downtown Clermont-Ferrand where three municipal police vehicles were parked. We put some fire-starter on the front tires of two of the three vehicles, assuming that the flames would spread, which was proven correct, as the media describes three vehicles destroyed by the fire.

Comments

France is definitely heading for the same kind of fascism that's affected America and Britain for over a decade (Bristol indymedia sold out a few years ago), and is also routine in parts of the global South. Thankfully at this point there are decades of precedent as to how to resist this kind of thing. The way Piratebay has responded to blocks down the years is instructive. Using proxies, domain name changes and so on. Wikileaks is also a precedent, it's survived several cut-offs, and of course they haven't shut down Islamists on the web either, nor has China been able to silence dissidents. Be aware that it is also possible to connect to Tor sites through the open web if a link is created - being a hidden site doesn't require being inaccessible from the open web. Also, find hosting out-of-jurisdiction, ideally in a state hostile to your own (avoid US hosts due to their extradition practices). You may hate Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela but they aren't going to care about burning police cars in France. An option used in China is to spam communiques in bulk to thousands of addresses. This gives plausible deniability to the people who subscribe, and also, the message reaches a lot more people than would visit the website. Also be aware that there is quiet censorship through monopolisation of the Internet by certain platforms. The majority of internet use is now through just three platforms - Facebook, Google and Amazon. Finding ways to use these and get attention is crucial, and anarchists are losing out to fascists, authoritarian left, and identity politics in these spaces at the moment, because most of us still use the old web 1.0 model. There's a balance to be found between avoiding dangerous corporate platforms and not being silenced.

The other thing I think we need to do better is to use mainstream human rights groups and liberal media in these cases. They may be reluctant to help when someone's burned a cop car or openly calls for "violence", but they can be activated around issues like not being held responsible for censoring others' content on your newswire, or people being convicted on flimsy charges. In the burning cop car case, some people were convicted just for being close to the protesters, and at least one was not clearly identified. I remember similar cases in Venezuela - an opposition leader is arrested after being seen with masked "violent" protesters apparently giving instructions, or people are charged based on evidence which they allege is planted - and Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, the liberal media are up in arms and calling it political persecution. Part of this is just bias, but I think this has to do with visibility and networking, this was missing in the Shac case especially, most people outside the movement did not realise that people were being charged just for running a campaign. Of course we don't want to fall for the idea that we only protest for the innocent and not the guilty, but we should also use the tools we have, to avoid being crushed. James Scott calls it heading for the limit of what the other side are forced to permit or unable to prevent - the more we can push back this limit, the stronger we are.

I'm really sorry to see this happening in France, which for decades was one of the hotbeds of social movements in Europe, the flag-bearer of 1789 and 1968, and the source of most recognised radical theory today. Especially at a time when movements are really heating up. Despite their system being in crisis and never really recovering from the 2008 crash, they seem to want to export the US/UK model everywhere. I hope the French movement keeps fighting, and learns from the collapse of the British movement in similar conditions a decade ago.

If someone can translate and send on to the affected groups then please do.

As for using the word "fascism" to describe the development of modern-day forms of totalitarianism, as the above poster calls it: this just lacks all nuance, and specificity. Today's developments have little in common with fascism as exemplified by Mussolini's Italy, Nazi Germany or Franco's Spain. Such a simplistic designation just doesn't get to grips with anything and is easily dismissed by anyone living in either the UK, the US or France other than those who believe that one has to be provoked into revolt by scaremongering.

Rapidly expanding the police state through declarations of "emergency" while invoking an openly racist fear of the other and hypernationalism to consolidate a far-right base in the general population. As good a definition as any ... Name the demon so that it can't hide.

1. It would be quite possible for the police to selectively demand that Indymedia Nantes remove it, but not other sites or mainstream media. These idiotic "terror" laws, and in fact a lot of laws, are set up so that they can be applied arbitrarily. Even when there's a clearly defined law, cops and courts can pick and choose who they charge and whether they convict. In this case, the purpose is presumably to put pressure on the entire Indymedia collective to make a decision one way or the other - either to self-censor or risk being closed down.

2. I've lived in one of those countries and it certainly feels like fascism. It's not gas-chambers level and there's some key differences, but the general arrangement is similar. Probably less like Italy, Spain, Germany in the 30s than like pseudo-democracies and populist authoritarian systems which maintained a state of emergency for years, or decades - Brazil, Greece, Taiwan, Singapore, today's China or Iran. All the social institutions are melded into the state through compliance practices. It's very hard, very risky, to set up sustainable projects without becoming enmeshed in policing the population. The stress level is very high, and people burn out very easily. Protest is very difficult. It's hard to even find unregulated spaces any more. There's loads of cops and cameras. People can be arrested for really stupid reasons. There's vast amounts of low-level bureaucratic harassment, some of it life-threatening. Certain tenets of regime ideology are unquestionable in public - de facto or de jure. There's a huge unquestioned doublethink. There's rights on paper, but none in practice. Most people are "chilled", afraid to act. There's a lot of policing of citizens by one another. There's also a lot of government and media promoted hatred. Periodic massive lockdowns, whole areas sealed off, and militarised policing operations, such as people grabbed off the street by plainclothes cops in balaclavas. A lot of the population are unaware of some of what's going on - but this was also true, even of Nazi Germany. I don't know if fascism's the right name for it, if (say) Greece in the 70s could be called fascist either. But it's not "bourgeois democracy", even with all its flaws. It's something a lot darker.

They call it neo-liberalism now which is a form of soft totalitarianism. With the dissolution of the workers movement in the 70's legitimate opposition to the power bloc was eliminated and we entered an era of what Marxists call real subsumption/domination. So while we still have bourgeois democracies it doesn't mean much because the political system is funded by the power bloc and there is no effective resistance to capitalism without revolutionary unions.

If you think it's splitting hairs to reject the label "fascist" because the term doesn't in any way clarify the differences between different forms of developing totalitarianism, then you simply make an equivalence of everything without bothering to look at subtleties. By your definition all current societies are fascist, because all tend towards totalitarianism, which says nothing useful whatsoever and points no way out either. Under this label, all demons hide.

You seem to want to cast me in the role of idiot here (so you know, get fucked asshole) but in fact, it would be more fair to say that there are many compelling arguments that much of the modern world IS fascist or totalitarian or whatever term you prefer. The issue is the guise and techniques of manipulation used by power, call them whatever you like, come to agreement about the enemy and what to do.

I'm not an academic so I tend to emphasize what anarchists are doing instead of spending years agonizing over theory and definitions.

I have no desire to cast you in the role of idiot. But if you want to struggle to understand and subvert this society, calling it simplistically "fascist" doesn't help because there are millions and millions of people who recognise that it is not fascist (for one thing, the cops haven't come knocking on my door at 6am to drag me away to be tortured or interrogated, which under fascism they surely would have done). It's not idiocy - just lazy thinking.

Nor am I an academic and never have been. Nor a "theoretician", any more than an activist, even though theory and action are both essential. If you write or talk about social matters, what you say or write is a mixture of theory and ideology (ie petrified ideas, unnuanced and untested). The development of one's own theory is vital as part of a struggle for subversive communication against ideology, which prevents clear understanding of what we're up against, prevents you connecting to others in struggle against this terrifying world, prevents you seeing the complexity of this shit world and narrows radical activity into easily controlled routes.

I know all this, are you an old fart or something? You have a bad habit of stating the obvious which is why I took offense.

Rather than nitpicking people's terms and calling them lazy thinkers, maybe you should reflect on how there ARE people being rounded up already and just because you'll be one of the last ones doesn't actually mean much, nor does your exact criteria for meeting your damned definition ...

Since you wanted to caricature me as "spending years agonizing over theory and definitions", I felt the need to say what you subsequently say you know is obvious.

France is slowly (and I emphasise "slowly") going on the road to neoliberalism, not fascism, and it's important for me - since I live there - to understand this in order to contribute to combatting it. There are far too many "anarchists" in France who also over-simplify and end up supporting unions as some bulwark against totalitarianism. Which just contributes to the general confusion that both unions and the state reinforce. If this doesn't bother you or aren't bothered that you are unaware of such things, then we obviously have nothing to say to each other, and I shan't continue saying anything here.

Actually I wasn't directing that at you as a jab, apparently you got defensive while also talking as if I'm simple? Perhaps you're more charming offline? Anyway, play your little word games and keep casually insulting people that probably agree with you.

Apparently every anarchist in France needs your advice so I shouldn't waste any more of your time here.

one person's "simple" is another's simple-minded... dumbing-down your ideas or message to communicate with "more people" (the nameless, faceless mass?) is the way of the populist (look it up!), the way of the demagogue (look it up!), the way of the anti-intellectual (or in your case, perhaps it would be more precise to say self-hating intellectual?). if we were speaking face to face, i'd interrupt constantly, demanding that you not use jargon. is that simple enough?

Yeah, so maybe the use of the term fascism to describe current events need to be straightened out a little?
Seems Sam (and boles) have an important point, which perhaps ought to be restated for the sake of clarity.
Not sure if I got it right, but as it seems to me then the right-winged (and by extension fascist) rhetoric are used to prop up the state and to divert attention - Steve Bannon have at least said as much.

As far as I can see, it's you that's spent time insulting me:
"get fucked asshole", "an old fart", "Apparently every anarchist in France needs your advice", "spending years agonizing over theory and definitions" (which, if it is not "a jab", then what is it?) plus loads of other disparaging remarks, whereas the only thing close to an insult against you is me accusing you of lazy thinking.

Memo to self: remember never to get into "debates " on A-news ( a lesson I should have learnt ages ago).

why should anyone treat you respectfully when you were the one who started with the insults? it is possible -- and for me, preferable -- to engage in actual debate/discussion about ideas, words (and their definitions), theories, and analyses without becoming petulant and indignant that there is disagreement. i have been known to toss the odd insult at my interlocutors from time to time, but i generally take a "no first strike" position. if someone finds it insulting that i describe their position(s) as incoherent, internally contradictory, untenable, ahistorical... then that's not my fault. i use these terms descriptively, and will happily explain the specifics of my analysis. but when people like you retort with gratuitous and off-topic barbs, it shouldn't be surprising that anyone would take offense.

basically, you can't get annoyed that someone would find your insults insulting, and you can't defend your insults by accusing the person being insulted of being defensive or sensitive. that's changing the subject, aka deflection. you should be smarter than that.

Sigh... I didn't start the insults. The worst I did was gently challenge Sam by suggesting that they were hairsplitting over the word fascism. I'm not the only person to suggest this, it's an ongoing debate.

They responded with a lecturing, presumptuous tone, mistaking me for someone who isn't that familiar with the topic, which was when I shifted to a more hostile tone.

Even still, most of my peers will sportingly tell me and each other to fuck off or go fuck themselves, etc and we can continue a productive discussion because we're not this damned sensitive.

I'm a reasonable person but if I feel like you're lecturing me, I'll tell you. We simply disagreed and Sam misread, then insulted, then got quite worked up, then you jumped in too. Read it all again if you need to *shrug*

i'm presuming you're the same anonymous who initially accused Sam of "hair-splitting." i'm pretty sure you meant that as an insult, which means you immediately began the insults. still, Sam didn't take the bait, only referring to his disagreement with you about the meaning and usefulness of the term "fascist." his response had no insults.

(presumably) your next response was this:
"You seem to want to cast me in the role of idiot here," which is actually indicative of YOUR defensiveness and sensitivity. Sam said nothing to imply that you're an idiot, only that he disagrees with your blanket use of the term "fascist" to describe discrete contemporary political tendencies.

your next move was this:
"(so you know, get fucked asshole)," which is nothing if not insulting. it is certainly NOT the way to "continue a productive discussion" regardless of your current attempt at contextualizing it by invoking the previously unknown method of banter you and "most of [your] peers" engage in. it's grand that you and your mates "sportingly" tell each other to fuck off, but Sam isn't your mate, so it makes no sense for you to be annoyed that he takes "get fucked asshole" as it's usually meant in the world beyond your intimate circle of fellow fuckers.

telling someone to "get fucked asshole" is certainly a challenge, but it's nowhere near "gentle." so you see, i did read it again. and using (presumably) your own words, i have shown that you were in fact the first one who resorted to insults (or perhaps that's just me splitting hairs over the definition of "insult"?)

You have me, I was insulting, but you have to realize this goes along way back, about 3 years ago, when Sam began the insults by calling me an anti-semetic scum-bag because I railed against kosher food and a shocking case of food poisoning I got from a Jewish butcher who was not using sulphites in his sausages for yuppie clients, look its a long tedious story, I won't bore you, but HE insulted me first, because I slandered Jewish sausages!

I have no memory of this at all - and Jewish sausages/kosher food is a subject I have no interest in or knowledge of and seems very unlikely I would defend as I really don't care about it one way or another; sure you're not confusing me with someone else? Besides 3 years is a long time to hold a grudge over what on the face of it seems very petty. And, moreover, has no relation to the current thread whatsoever.

nobody has to "realize this goes along [sic] way back." this is deflection, a ploy to absolve you -- despite your admission -- of responsibility for being the first one to deploy insults in your disagreements with Sam. once again you try to create a context, and once again it's bereft of relevance; it's merely a pathetic excuse for your gratuitous hostility. just as nobody here knows how sportingly you and your mates tell each other to fuck off, nobody here -- including Sam! -- knows anything about koshersausagegate. even if your version of events were true, invoking a three-year grudge against one person and then going on an anonymous but semi-public revenge-fueled tirade on a completely different topic is ridiculous, even by anarchist standards.

That's rich and hypocritical considering your insults directed to Leeway who never actually ever insults anyone, unless you label witty snide sarcasm as insult. You obviously lack a sense of humor or else, and I suspect that this could be the real reason, you are actually Sam's sock puppet, Sam's enormous ego demands a reply or commentary from posters, but his (yours) manner and boring outdated activist syndicalist mentality is dull, and so creating flamewars draws people to your (Sam's) commentary and away from those of a more interesting and advanced view, people such as emile, @critic, Sir Enziege, and even that harmless poet Leeway, who I think you(Sam)secretly envy. You are no better than a bourgeois unionist working for the capitalists.

I neither know who boles is (possibly someone I know but s/he hasn't told me their A-news name) nor have I read anything by Leeway, so can hardly be envious of him/her. Nor am I a syndicalist or unionist, as any look at my site would clearly show.

I thank boles for supporting me, but really this argument should end here, as false accusations of sock puppetry are impossible to refute with any proof and besides, this really is getting nowhere and is a waste of time. Particularly when the above poster refers to emile and Sir Einzige as "interesting and more advanced" (you really have to be fucked in the head to attribute such adjectives to these 2 pretentious wafflers).

You know all about the Jewish sausages! Remember, you called me a Nazi because I said Yiddish sausages were better because of the German recipe and superiority of ingredients. You twisted this around to make it sound that I inferred that Germans were superior chefs.

I'm 99.9999% sure I'd remember that if I'd said such an absurd thing - but I don't. I must have chronic Alzheimers or I did it in my sleep. But more likely, you're either deliberately confusing me with someone else or are genuinely mistaken or have invented this as some curious wind-up (I'd guess the latter). I never call anybody a Nazi unless they obviously are and even if I thought you were saying German chefs were superior it would be insane to infer from that that you were a Nazi. If you can show the subject of the thread it was on then it shouldn't be hard to check (maybe a discussion on the Frankfurter School?). But you won't, because I'm pretty sure you're just playing a silly game that only you think is hilarious.

This was not a thread on some impersonal forum, this was face to face, you were drunk and out of it from an Octoberfest like copycat event in London, and there was a radical anti-capitalist American Hotdog and Mustard rally at the American embassy, you had said hotdogs were unhealthy, and I had casually said, "German frankfurters were superior to the Jewish sausages of Wall Street", it was meant as a witty critique of the mercantile American hearland, and you went off your head screaming and then vomiting up all the beer and pork trotters you had eaten. You were in a dark place, I think your girlfriend had left you recently. You were obnoxious and a rude mess. Anyway, what are you if not syndicalist or Stirnerite? You must be an ancap or maybe just an embittered left-wing freelance journalist shit stirring everyone to get a good story and feed your ego.

If there's any truth to this increasingly contradictory story, you're very clearly not talking about me but someone else, since none of these things have anything resembling anything I did the last time I was in London (May 2014). I won't reply to any insane continuation of this by you, so feel free to have the last word.

Alas, tho the commons be enclose'd
I ken of private spot
the sheep may witness fucking
but the farmer's no aware
Boudica fought for freedom
the roman's piled rocks
Hold me ya working stiff
Slainte! we'll riot there

Sam oh Sam ye rebel queer man,
The sayeth huge Falstaff,
Did mount you at the miller's barn,
As payback and for a laugh,
Because you were a Parliamentarian,
And against the King's men.?
There is no peace in this,
Your britches are all soiled,
And you cannot sit at your seat,
And write your witty verse.

Fair Sam and Boles were spyethed,
In thoust rose garden,
Twas daintly perfumed thee chastity belt,
Its leather and spikes nay detereth,
The sweet desires of this robust knight,
Oh thoust traitors to the common salt.
Cease this game of words!
I shall have last say.

A typical anarchist response to things not going your way... No wonder so many sophisticated observers — including other anarchists! — find most anarchists to be nothing more than petulant self-parodies